I don't think the intention is to normalize the behaviors. There are a lot of things people are predisposed to genetically, but they're still held accountable for their actions. Especially if it violates the rights of someone else. Because a child cannot legally consent, a pedophile, even if they can't control their urges, will be prosecuted. There are people who due to biological factors are prone to violence. It doesn't save them from going to jail when they murder someone. People don't think about the fact that we are our brains. All behavior has a cause. Whether it's a long life of abuse creating changes in our brains, genetic predisposition affecting the ways things wired, etc.

It may not be the scientists' intention but there is a real danger that it could bear on decisions in a courtroom, though. Best believe you'll have lawyers trying to manipulate that finding. It reminds me of an old episode of Law & Order SVU where a pedophile was trying to make this exact same argument as a justification as to why he and others raped children. He wanted it to be called "grown-up child love" *sic*. This could eventually have an impact on jurisprudence if this is proven and that is scary beyond words

not really. its pretty cut and dry that children don't have consent.

they can sure try the defense, but if you are found guilty of sexually assaulting a child, you will be convicted no matter what.

they aren't trying to desensitize people from it.

i find it that every time science touches subjects which aren't politically correct, the public sticks them with an accusation of attempting to justify the wrong doing of others.

But the same argument can be made for all deviant behaviors. There are a lot of things that were at one point criminalized that aren't now because it was ultimately decided that no one was being harmed. That's not the case here. I'd also discourage using Law & Order as a reference on how things may play out in court. Most cases don't even go to trial. If someone has the resources, they can manipulate the system anyway, law or no law. I don't think that looking into the fact that pedophilia is a compulsion will change the outcome of most cases because for many people, murder is a compulsion as well. They will lock you up quicker than anything for it too. I don't see much sympathy for serial killers.

I don't think the intention is to normalize the behaviors. There are a lot of things people are predisposed to genetically, but they're still held accountable for their actions. Especially if it violates the rights of someone else. Because a child cannot legally consent, a pedophile, even if they can't control their urges, will be prosecuted. There are people who due to biological factors are prone to violence. It doesn't save them from going to jail when they murder someone. People don't think about the fact that we are our brains. All behavior has a cause. Whether it's a long life of abuse creating changes in our brains, genetic predisposition affecting the ways things wired, etc.

It may not be the scientists' intention but there is a real danger that it could bear on decisions in a courtroom, though. Best believe you'll have lawyers trying to manipulate that finding. It reminds me of an old episode of Law & Order SVU where a pedophile was trying to make this exact same argument as a justification as to why he and others raped children. He wanted it to be called "grown-up child love" *sic*. This could eventually have an impact on jurisprudence if this is proven and that is scary beyond words

not really. its pretty cut and dry that children don't have consent.

they can sure try the defense, but if you are found guilty of sexually assaulting a child, you will be convicted no matter what.

they aren't trying to desensitize people from it.

i find it that every time science touches subjects which aren't politically correct, the public sticks them with an accusation of attempting to justify the wrong doing of others.

It's cut and dry NOW. But attitudes evolve (or in this case "devolve"). It wasn't long ago that homosexuality was seen as a deviant behaviour in the West (still is in a lot of places in the world). The mere fact that society accepts that there is a genetic component to it can give the pedophile lobby a lot of power, imo. And that is frightening, especially considering that there is no such thing as a "cure" or effective therapy for it.

But the same argument can be made for all deviant behaviors. There are a lot of things that were at one point criminalized that aren't now because it was ultimately decided that no one was being harmed. That's not the case here. I'd also discourage using Law & Order as a reference on how things may play out in court. Most cases don't even go to trial. If someone has the resources, they can manipulate the system anyway, law or no law. I don't think that looking into the fact that pedophilia is a compulsion will change the outcome of most cases because for many people, murder is a compulsion as well. They will lock you up quicker than anything for it too. I don't see much sympathy for serial killers.

The Law in Order reference was really just made because this scientific conclusion made me think of it, though. I'm not really basing my argument on a show on tv, lol. It just reminded me of it. And the first bolded sentence pretty much bolsters my point. Who is to say that in the future, it won't be decided that sex with children is a normal part of life and not as harmful as it is considered now? Like you said, lots of things that were at one point criminalized aren't anymore. I just view this in a broader realm (homosexuality, marijuana, etc...) This opens the door to future precedents and it's frightening.

Of course it doesn't. What I mean is that discoveries like this one can open the door for people to even challenge in the future the very notion of consent (scary as that may be, it happens). We can't deny that jurisprudence is influenced by scientific discoveries

Of course it doesn't. What I mean is that discoveries like this one can open the door for people to even challenge in the future the very notion of consent (scary as that may be, it happens). We can't deny that jurisprudence is influenced by scientific discoveries

I'm skeptical. I'm just looking at how heavily things are weighted against other people who are biologically predisposed to different destructive behaviors. No f*cks are given. That may one day change, but at least in my lifetime, it seems really unlikely. If the door opens to that, it'll be because people wanted it to. Pedophilia was accepted in the US without the science.

Of course it doesn't. What I mean is that discoveries like this one can open the door for people to even challenge in the future the very notion of consent (scary as that may be, it happens). We can't deny that jurisprudence is influenced by scientific discoveries

the pendulum will not shift on consent.

Let's hope so. I'm not nearly as optimistic. History can and has taken odd twists and turns before. Either way, it makes me uneasy.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum